Nobody’s perfect, but a team can be A report on team roles for communication skills 2WX04 1

Richard F. Bakker 0543198 Finbar S. Bogerd 0474580 Zheng He 0600005 Wouter X. Mieras 0537945 Vincent Ssemaganda 0600043 31st May 2006

1

Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science

Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 Style and Cohesion . . . . . . . . 1.2 Identification and Internalization 1.3 Motivation and Improvement . . 1.4 Models and Concepts . . . . . . . 1.5 Team Building Factors . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

3 3 4 4 5 5

2 Belbin 2.1 History of Belbin . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Teamopoly . . . . . . 2.1.2 Stages of Research . . 2.2 Principles . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Belbin Types . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Chairman . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Shaper . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3 Plant . . . . . . . . . 2.3.4 Monitor evaluator . . 2.3.5 Company Worker . . . 2.3.6 Resource investigator 2.3.7 Team worker . . . . . 2.3.8 Completer finisher . . 2.3.9 Specialist . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7 7 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 11 12 12 13 13 13

3 Cognitive Team Roles 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . 3.2 Principles . . . . . . . 3.3 Roles . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Sensory focus . 3.3.2 Task focus . . . 3.3.3 People focus . . 3.4 Making a strong team

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

15 15 15 16 16 16 17 18

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

4 Myer’s management team roles indicators

19

5 The Magerison-McCann team management wheel

22

6 Conclusion

25

1

Summary In this report a comparison is made between different team role models; Belbin, Cognitive Team Roles, Myers management team roles indicators and The Magerison-McCann team management wheel. In the first chapter there will be a short introduction about working in teams, after this introduction the different models will be discussed. In these chapters all different team roles will be stated with their properties. In the last chapter these models are compared; the different models all have 8 to 10 types and the different models have very much in common.

2

Chapter 1

Introduction Effective team working is critical to the success of organizations. People need to be able to work together in a variety of ways, taking responsibility as individuals, working in functional groups and contributing to project groups for specific tasks. Cross-organisational and multi-disciplinary groups are becoming increasingly important ways of achieving results and remaining competitive in the current deregulated global economic climate. This represents a move away from direct management control to a more participative style that encourages greater commitment from individuals and team members. This means that people must develop the capability to contribute to effective team working, both as team leaders and as members of a team. Organizations need their teams to achieve high performances in a short space of time and to be self-directing, responsive and motivating. This is the ideal which can be difficult to achieve when teams are so fast changing with demanding agendas, and when individuals have to adapt to being members of different teams working to achieve different objectives and priorities. All the more reason to understand how to help team members get to know each other and become an effective unit as quickly as possible. Some key elements of effective team building are: • Style and Cohesion • Identification and Internalization • Motivation and Improvement • Models and Concepts • Team Building Factors

1.1

Style and Cohesion

The cultural style, dynamics and cohesion of a team are influenced by the previous experiences of team members and the individual and collective beliefs and intentions expressed by the group. These factors are critical elements that impact on the development and improvement of a team culture. The smaller the team, the more influence individual relationships have on group cohesion. Conversely, the larger the group, the more important leadership is to achieve group cohesion. The more powerfully attractive or dominant the personality of the leader, the more they will determine the group’s cultural style.

3

Every team is unique and will find its own way of working effectively and productively. As a general rule, a well functioning and cohesive team will provide both social and emotional support for all its members, helping to develop skills and confidence and deal with any pressures and issues as they arise.

1.2

Identification and Internalization

To create a successful team dynamic it is necessary to establish a stable and effective relationship between individual team members and also between the team and other groups. These relationships should be: • Positively Constructive • Mutually Rewarding • Mutually Satisfying The skill is to achieve the actual process of translating individuals’ motivations and proficiency into effective team performance as quickly as possible. For this an understanding of the group consciousness is necessary. This is to identify the ”self” within the team or group. Which is the mutual understanding people develop as a shared mind set when they work regularly together. Group consciousness is the combination of identifying with a group and subconsciously sharing a consensus with each other. All members of the team will appreciate some guidance, support and reassurance when external factors threaten to disrupt their world of work and this is the role of a good team leader or facilitator. When attempting to understand a team’s culture (knowing where the team is coming from), both individually and collectively and understanding what elements make team members feel their work as a team is worthwhile, is invaluable. As is an understanding that internalized beliefs and values can help to explain some of the drivers or barriers to effective team building and provide a means to capitalize on past experiences in order to strengthen a team’s unique image and shared values.

1.3

Motivation and Improvement

The previous experiences, beliefs and values of individuals will have an impact on expectations and if team members believe that change and improvement will not be to their advantage or will not produce beneficial outcomes for the team or the organization, this will cause negative motivation within the group. If, on the other hand, team members are positively motivated towards supporting changes and improvements that they believe will be of benefit to everyone involved, this will generate the positive motivation required to successfully move forward. The introduction of a planned and structured teambuilding programme, facilitated by a capable, committed and enthusiastic team leader or facilitator, cannot be overstated. It is important that individuals who manage team building programmes and facilitate team meetings have good communication skills and other attributes that support healthy team dynamics and encourage active participation and involvement by all team members. Good team dynamics and team spirit are dependent on the quality of interaction between individual personalities within a group. Just as individual personalities are made up of a mix of characteristics, so a team has an identity made up of the different personalities and skills of its members. Therefore, one of the key challenges of a team leader or facilitator is to successfully meld individual skills and personalities to create a multi-coordinate and highly motivating team dynamic that allows for individuality and promotes the importance of individual contributions made to a sharply focused team effort.

4

1.4

Models and Concepts

The purpose and objectives of using any team roles model are to: • generate beneficial understanding • encourage dialogue between team members, and • create new working practices if appropriate. There are four primary team role models used within organisations today: • Belbin’s Team Roles • Beddoes-Jones’ Cognitive Team Roles • Margerison-McCann’s Team Management Wheel • Myers’ MTR-i Although all four models have a different basis in psychological theory (the comparisons of which are outside the scope of this article), they also have a number of similarities. All have identified between eight and ten roles that exist within a team structure. All four models also suggest that people will have different degrees of preference for fulfilling each role and may avoid some roles if they can. The need for behavioral and situational flexibility is stressed particularly by the MTR-i and Cognitive Team Roles. Belbin suggests that the ideal team size is between five and six people, which means that some people will need to take on complementary or dual roles within a team. Beddoes-Jones deliberately doesn’t specify an optimal team size, as Cognitive Team Roles principles suggest that a high performing team can number as few as two people just so long as, between them, they fulfil all of the ten cognitive roles. Research carried out using Cognitive Team Roles suggests that if a team numbers eight or more people, it will tend to divide into smaller sub-teams.

1.5

Team Building Factors

When planning and running team building activities, exercises or events, certain variables can have a significant influence on the way the activity works. When planning team building, or any group activity, consider what impact the following factors might have on the well-being and effectiveness of a team: • Size and location • Skills of team leaders and facilitators • Style of team leaders and facilitators • Personality traits, beliefs and values • Psychometrics testing and theory • Gender and age differences • Fitness levels and abilities • Team dynamics and team spirit • Learning styles and coaching methods • Individual and collective experiences

5

• Briefing and guidance on tasks • Length of project and planning • Reward and recognition • Venue and room layout • Materials provided or made available • Roles and responsibilities of facilitator, record keeper, reviewer or presenter • Rules if a competition or team league • Games used to develop team building skills such as leadership, co-operation, communication, ice breakers, planning and time-management • Planning and running of meetings and workshops • Practical sessions dealing with actual business issues, real content and action-based outcomes The information from this section has been taken from [3] and [4].

6

Chapter 2

Belbin

Figure 2.1: All the belbin types fit together to make the winning team.

2.1

History of Belbin

At Henley, the oldest management College in Europe, they had their own approach to educate managers. The education was founded on syndicate work. A syndicate comprised ten or eleven members, carefully selected to give a balance in terms of background and experience. The College discovered that some syndicates functioned better than other, the underlying reasons were elusive and were subject to much debate on the part of the directing staff. Managers who were individually able and impressive could be disappointing when working together, while other less impressive managers functioned well together. There seemed no easy way of forecasting which combination of managers would produce the best teams. Belbin was contacted to do research of this strange phenomenon. Syndicates were broken up and re-formed into new groups, known as companies. Once again some teams functioned better then others, but now the outcomes were measurable. Results are what managers are expected to produce, and it seemed therefore fitting to use a hard criterion as the means by which the effectiveness of Henley teams might be judged.

7

So the output was measurable, but the input should also be measurable. So members of the teams were given a battery of psychometric tests. These told something about the personality and mental ability of each member and offered the possibility of forming particular types of team with a characteristic input pattern. The relationship between input and output now became the focus of interest. The nature of this process needed to be studied and here Belbin was assisted by observers. These observers were trained to use a standardized method of observation. During the early stages of this investigation there was something artificial about the management teams which were studied. The experiments were seen as being conducted under glasshouse conditions and therefore not applicable. There were usually six members in a company, Chairman, Secretary and executives responsible for Marketing, Production, Finance and Management services. On most courses there were 8 companies competing in an exercise which attempted to simulate the problems that companies experience in real world. This first test spanned three years and the data was fed into a computer. But this exercise was not good enough, negotiating skills should figure more strongly and the difference between succes and failure should be more sharply. So he came up with a new exercise called Teamopoly.

2.1.1

Teamopoly

The problem with the previous exercise was that differences in the final assets of companies were sometimes small and this created the impression that levels of effectiveness were much the same. As a means of sharpening the lessons associated with succes or failure Teamopoly was created. Teamoploy differed from the previous by being a team game with four members to each company. The rules were revised so that property could change hands only by tender, auction and negotiation. As a result of this and other changes, luck was to a great extent eliminated. The only practical difficulty experienced was that teams could become bankrupt earlier than was desirable. The introduction of bank loans eventually overcame this problem. The reason for team failures were the faulty team composition, for which the members could not be blamed, or in a poor use of team resources, for which they could. After about five of six years of experimental work, the theories and techniques were used in firms to develop managers, to reconstruct unsuccessful teams and to set up well-balanced teams.

2.1.2

Stages of Research

The nature of this work can be divided in to five stages. All these stages retained two common features; members who volunteered to do so and also took the psychometric tests and the financial outcomes of the various teams were measured and taken as an indicator of their succes in meeting their objectives. The five stages of research were as follows: 1. Learn from the teams composed by the College at Henley, this by the test results of the individuals comprising the teams, the observer material and the financial yardsticks at the end 2. Compose the teams yourself and see the differences between a team of pure introverts and pure extraverts, this was a long stage. 3. A number of specific hypotheses was tested. Every failure told something and the observers gave a lead on why things turned out differently then the expectations. 4. Objectives were modified to enable managers to play an active part in designing their own teams 5. In the final stage conditions were reverted to the experimental conditions of stage three

8

In stage four managers could design their own team, here they had no idea of the identity of the person but he just obtains a list with the outcomes of several tests. The outcome was a great shock for some selectors because the concept of team design did not depended on personal likes or dislikes. A favorite golfing companion would be omitted whereas a member with whom a selector had clashed might be included. So different compositions of the teams were more important then getting along with each other or the strength of the each individual. After nine years of work, every twist and turn was explored. In the final exercise at Henley very close predictions of the order of succes and failure were made. So the succes of teams is the result of which members are in the team. Belbin says that these different members can be associated with different types. And these types have their own properties. In section 2.3 these types will be named and their properties will be discussed.

2.2

Principles

The way this model is used requires some principles to guide and inform the use of it. Belbin uses five principles, which are the following: 1. each team member contributes to achieving objectives by performing both a functional role and a team role 2. an optimal balance in functional and team roles is needed 3. team effectiveness depends on the extent to which members correctly recognise and adjust to the relative strengths within the team 4. a team can deploy its technical resources to best advantages only when it has the range and balance of team roles to ensure efficient team work 5. Belbin suggests that individual personality and mental abilities fit members for some team roles and limit their ability to play others

2.3

Belbin Types

The Belbin model is founded on the identification of eight different team roles that need to be fulfilled in a successful team. In the next nine1 paragraphs we give a short outline of the different team roles. These descriptions are taken from [2].

2.3.1

Chairman

A chairman can be described as stable, dominant and extrovert. A chairman is the one who presides over the team and co-ordinates its efforts to meet external goals and targets. They are distinguished by their preoccupation with objectives. They usually have at least normally intelligence, but they are not in any sense brilliant and no outstanding creative thinkers. It is rare for any of the good ideas to originate with them. They are much more remarkable for what used to be called character. They have a high degree of self-discipline. They often have what is called charisma but it is perhaps easier to think of it as authority. They are dominant, but in a relaxed and unassertive way. They have an instinct to trust people unless there is very strong evidence that they are untrustworthy, and they are singularly free from jealousy. 1 We found references to the specialist, a type that is not considered in the original Belbin model, but we decided to include it since it can be considered as an extension or supplement to the Belbin types, and it is includes in some variations of the Belbin model.

9

A chairman sees most clearly which member of the team is strong or weak in each area of the team’s function, and they focus people on what they do best. They are conscious of the need to use the team’s combined human resources as effectively as possible. This means they are the ones who establish the roles and work boundaries of the others and also who see gaps and take steps to fill them. A chairman talks easily and is easy to talk to - a good communicator in the two-way sense, neither a compulsive talker nor a person of few words, but certainly a good listener. It is the chairman who clarifies the group’s objectives and sets its agenda. The chairman selects the problems for the teams consideration and establishes priorities, but does not attempt to dominate the discussion. Their own early contributions are more likely to take the form of questions than assertions or proposals. They listen, they sum up group feeling and articulate group verdicts, and if a decision has to be taken, they take it firmly after everyone has had their say.

2.3.2

Shaper

A shaper can be described as anxious, dominant and extrovert. Some observers of teams in action have suggested that a team needs a social leader, who is the permanent head of the group, and a separate task leader, who is in charge of a specific and defined project - much in the way that a nation needs both a Head of State, who is permanent, and a Head of Government, with a specific job to do. If so, the shaper is the task leader and the chairman is the social leader. The shaper is most likely to be the actual leader of the team in those cases where there is no chairman or where the chairman is not, in fact, the leader. The shaper is full of nervous energy. The shaper is outgoing and emotional, impulsive and impatient, sometimes edgy and easily frustrated. shapers are quick to challenge, and quick to respond to a challenge (which a shaper enjoys and welcomes). Shapers often have rows, but they are quick to make up and they do not harbor grudges. Of all the team, shapers are the most prone to paranoia and the first to feel that there is a conspiracy afoot and they are the object or the victim of it. The principal function of the shaper is to give shape to the application of the team’s efforts, often supplying more of their own personal input than the chairman does. Shapers are always looking for a pattern in discussions, and trying to unite ideas, objectives and practical considerations into one single feasible project, which a shaper seek to push forward urgently to decision and action. The shaper beams self-confidence, which often covers up strong self-doubts. Only results can reassure them. A shapers drive, which has a compulsive quality, is always directed at their objectives. They are usually the team’s objectives too, but the shaper much more than the chairman, sees the team as an extension of his ego. Shapers want action and they want it now. They are personally competitive, intolerant of woolliness, vagueness and muddled thinking, and people outside the team are likely to describe them as arrogant and abrasive. Even people inside the team are in danger of being steamrollered by them on occasions, and they can make the team uncomfortable. However the shaper makes things happen.

2.3.3

Plant

A plant can be described as dominant, having a very high I.Q. and introvert. The plant originally received the name when it was found that one of the best ways to improve the performance of an ineffective and uninspired team was to ’plant’ one of this team type in it. But the plant can also be considered as the one who scatters the seeds which the others nourish 10

until they bear fruit. The plant is the team’s source of original ideas, suggestions and proposals. The plant is the ideas person. Of course others have ideas too, but what distinguishes the plant’s ideas is their originality and the radical-minded approach they bring to problems and obstacles. They are the most imaginative as well as the most intelligent member of the team and the most likely to start searching for a completely new approach to a problem if the team starts getting bogged down, or to bring a new insight to a line of action already agreed. Plants are much more concerned with major issues and fundamentals than with details, and indeed they are liable to miss out on details and make careless mistakes. They are trustful and uninhibited in a way that is fairly uncharacteristic of an introvert. Plants can also be prickly and cause offence to other members of the team, particularly when criticizing their ideas. A plants’ criticisms are usually designed to clear the ground for their ideas and are usually followed by their own counterproposals. The danger with the plant is that they will devote too much of their creative energy to ideas which may catch their fancy but do not fall in with the team’s needs or contribute to its objectives. Plants may be bad at accepting criticism of their own ideas and quick to take offence and sulk if their ideas are dissected or rejected; indeed, they may switch off and refuse to make any further contribution. It can take quite a lot of careful handling and flattery (usually by the chairman) to get the best out of them. But for all their faults, it is the plant who provides the vital spark.

2.3.4

Monitor evaluator

A monitor evaluator can be described as having a high I.Q., stable and introvert. In a balanced team only the plant, monitor evaluator and specialist need a high I.Q., but by contrast with the plant, the monitor evaluator is a bit of a cold fish. By temperament they are likely to be serious and very dour. Their contribution lies in measured and dispassionate analysis rather than creative ideas, and while they are unlikely to come up with an original proposal, they are the most likely to stop the team from committing itself to a misguided project. Although they are by nature more of a critic than a creator, monitor evaluators do not usually criticize just for the sake of it, but only if they can see a flaw in the plan or the argument. They take a serious and sober view on life, enthusiasm and euphoria simply are not part of their style. This, however, has the compensating advantage that ego-involvement does not cloud or distort their judgement. monitor evaluators are slow to make up their mind, and like to be given time to mull things over, but theirs is the most objective mind in the team. One of a monitor evaluators most valuable skills is in assimilating, interpreting and evaluating large volumes of complex material and data, analyzing problems and assessing the judgements and contributions of the others. Sometimes they can do this rather tactlessly, which does not ease their popularity, and they can lower the team’s morale by being too much of a damper at the wrong time. Whilst they take an inert approach to most situations, they can be competitive, especially with those whose skills overlap with their own, which means in most cases with the chairman or the plant. It is important for the monitor evaluator to be fair minded and open to change, there is a danger that they will turn into an opposing force and allow their critical powers to out-weigh their receptiveness to new ideas. Although they are solid and dependable, they can lack jollity, warmth, imagination and spontaneity. Nevertheless they have one quality which makes them indispensable to the team, their 11

judgement is hardly ever wrong.

2.3.5

Company Worker

A company worker can be described as stable and controlled. The company worker is the practical organizer. The company worker is the one who turns decisions and strategies into defined and manageable tasks that people can actually get on with. They are concerned with what is feasible, and their chief contribution is to convert the team’s plans into a feasible form. They sort out objectives and pursue them logically. Like the chairman, a company worker also has strength of character and a disciplined approach. They are notable for their sincerity, their integrity and their trust of their colleagues. They are not easily deflated or discouraged, it is only a sudden change of plan that is likely to upset them, because they are liable to flounder in unstable, quickly changing situations. Because a company worker needs stable structures, they are always trying to build them. Give them a decision and they will produce a schedule, give them a group of people and an objective and they will produce an organization chart. They work efficiently, systematically and methodically, but they are sometimes a little inflexible. They are unresponsive to speculative ideas that do not have a visible immediate influence or relevancy on the task at hand. At the same time they are usually perfectly willing to trim and adapt their schedules and proposals to fit into agreed plans and established systems. The company worker can be over-competitive for team status, which can be damaging if it expresses itself in the form of negative, unconstructive criticism of suggestions put forward by other members of the team. Normally, however, company workers are close to the team’s point of balance. If anyone does not know what on earth has been decided and what they are supposed to be doing they will go to the company worker first to find out.

2.3.6

Resource investigator

A resource investigator can be described as stable, dominant and extrovert. The resource investigator is probably the most immediately likeable member of the team. A resource investigator is relaxed and social, with an interest that is easily aroused. Their responses tend to be positive and enthusiastic, though they are prone to put things down as quickly as they take them up. The resource investigator is the member of the team who goes outside the group and brings information, ideas and developments back to it. They makes friends easily and have masses of outside contacts. They are rarely in their office, and when they are, they are probably on the telephone. Their ability to stimulate ideas and encourage innovation by this activity would lead most people to mistake them for an idea person, but they do not have the radical originality that distinguishes the plant, for all that, they are quick to see the relevance of new ideas. Without the stimulus of others, for example in a solitary job, the resource investigator can easily become bored, demoralized and ineffective. Within the team, however, they are a good improvisors, active under pressure, but can over-relax when it eases. They can fail to follow up tasks they have undertaken in one of their frequent bursts of short-lived enthusiasm. Their range and variety of outside interests can lead them, like the plant, to spend too much time on irrelevancies that interest them. Nevertheless a resource investigators team role is the most important to preserve the team from stagnation, fossilization and losing touch with reality.

12

2.3.7

Team worker

A team worker can be described as stable, extrovert and low in dominance. The team worker is the most sensitive of the team. A team worker is the most aware of individual’s needs and worries, and the one who perceives most clearly the emotional undercurrents within the group. They also know most about the private lives and family affairs of the rest of the team. They are the most active internal communicator. A team worker is likeable, popular, unassertive, the cement of the team. They are loyal to the team as a unit (though this does not mean they cannot take sides when there is a split) and support all the others. If someone produces an idea, their instinct is to build on it, rather than demolish it or produce a rival idea. They are good and willing listeners and communicate freely and well within the team, and they also help and encourage others to do the same. As a promoter of unity and harmony, they counterbalance the friction and discord that can be caused by the shaper and the plant, and occasionally by the monitor evaluator. They particularly dislike personal confrontation and tend to try and avoid it themselves and cool it down in others. When the team is under pressure or in difficulties, the team worker’s sympathy, understanding, loyalty and support are especially valued. Their uncompetitiveness and dislike of friction may make them seem a bit soft and indecisive, but also makes them a permanent force operating against division and disruption in the team. They are exemplary team members and though in normal times the value of their individual contribution may not be as immediately visible as most of the other team roles, the effect is very noticeable indeed when they are not there, especially in times of stress and pressure.

2.3.8

Completer finisher

A completer finisher can be described as anxious and introvert. The completer finisher worries about what might go wrong and is never at ease until he has personally checked every detail and made sure that everything has been done and nothing has been overlooked. It is not that they are overtly or irritatingly fussy, their obsession is an expression of anxiety. The completer finisher is not an assertive member of the team, but they maintain a permanent sense of urgency which they communicate to others to galvanize them into activity. They have self control and strength of character and are impatient of, and intolerant towards, the more casual and slap-happy members of the team. If the completer finisher has one major preoccupation, it is order. A completer finisher is a compulsive meeter of deadlines and fulfiller of schedules. If he is not careful he can be a moralelowering worrier with a depressing effect on the rest of the team, and a completer finisher can too easily lose sight of the overall objective by getting bogged down in small details. Nevertheless his relentless follow-through is an important asset.

2.3.9

Specialist

The role of specialist is not defined in every book about Belbin types. This type can be considered an extension or supplement to the 8 Belbin types. A specialist can be described as having a very high I.Q., introvert, passive and single-minded. Specialists are dedicated individuals who pride themselves on acquiring technical skills and special-

13

ized knowledge. Their priorities center on maintaining professional standards and on furthering and defending their own field. While they show great pride in their own subject, they usually lack interest in the subjects of others. Eventually, the specialist becomes the expert by sheer commitment along a narrow front. There are few people who have either the single-mindedness, or the aptitude, to become a first-class specialist. Specialists have an indispensable part to play in some teams, for they provide the rare skill upon which the firm’s service or product is based. As a manager, they command support because they know more about their subject than anyone else, and can usually be called upon to make decisions based on their in-depth experience.

14

Chapter 3

Cognitive Team Roles 3.1

Introduction

In this chapter we look at another model to identify team roles, the Cognitive Team Roles model. Section 3.2 gives the ten main principles of Cognitive Team Roles. In section 3.3 the different roles in Cognitive Team Roles are described. Finally, section 3.4 gives a sketch of how Cognitive Team Roles can be used to improve a team. The material in this chapter is mainly based on articles from two websites, the website of the Hampshire Learning Centre [5] and the website of the The Cognitive Fitness Consultancy [6], [7].

3.2

Principles

Cognitive Team Roles was developed in 2000 by a small group of psychologists and training consultants. The psychological basis for Cognitive Team Roles is the Thinking Styles psychometric, developed by Fiona Beddoes-Jones, which measures the cognitive and linguistic preferences and flexibility for 26 types of thinking. Cognitive Team Roles considers the cognitive roles and the way the team members interact with each other more important than the functional roles of each team member. It is based on the following ten principles: 1. All roles are important, but some roles might be more important to the succes of the team then others at certain points in the life of the team. 2. Cognitive Roles are more important then certain functional roles or responsibilities in the team. 3. There is not one role that is a better leadership role than any other. 4. A team can only be effective if the team members can be flexible within their roles. 5. Some people might take on more than one (complementary) role in the team, this is more likely to happen in smaller teams than in bigger teams. 6. More than one person can take on the same cognitive role. These people will tend to work together. 7. Depending on the needs of the team, team members may take on different roles in the team at different points in time. 8. If there are too many people that want to take on a specific role in the team, the team might lose it’s balance: it might become inflexible to respond to changes. 9. Sometimes a team member might take on a role that he / she does not really like in order to keep the team balanced or if a specific role really needs to be fulfilled. 15

10. In order for the team to be successful, all the roles must be fulfilled.

3.3

Roles

The different team roles in Cognitive Team Roles are divided into three parts: sensory focus, task focus and people focus, and are based on the Thinking Styles psychometric. Below a short description of the ten different roles is given, see also figure 3.1.

3.3.1

Sensory focus

The Intuitive Thinker The intuitive thinkers focus on how they feel. They mainly use intuition and emotion to make decisions and usually have an emotional commitment to the team, and sometimes also as strong personal commitment to the work that they do. Intuitive thinkers will also prefer to work on a project that they feel emotionally attached to. They often bring some passion in the team, motivating others to become more committed to the task at hand. A possible weakness of intuitive thinkers is that they may decide on thinks using only their intuition and emotion without any real evidence that they are correct, which might give an imbalanced decision.

3.3.2

Task focus

The Creative Thinker Creative thinkers are good at finding patterns and making connections. Sometimes they begin their thinking from the end result and work backwards. They usually have a good imagination and think very quickly. They prefer to multi-task and work on different parts of work, but can become bored by routine work. Sometimes they may contribute ideas that are certainly creative, but not practical to implement. The Strategist A strategist thinks on the long term, keeps an overview of what needs to be done and makes long term plans. They usually talk in general terms and don’t bother about the details of a problem. Sometimes they might dislike being forced to deal with the details. Because they tend to think about the future they might be not so good at dealing with the immediate present. The Driver The driver likes to see things in motion and tries to make the team work actively. They are good at executing plans and don’t like waiting for things to happen, especially waiting for another team member to do something. They try to focus the attention of the team on taking action and might become impatient or even frustrated if things move too slowly for them. Because they focus on getting results, they sometimes forget to consider the consequences of their rushed actions. The Logical Thinker Logical thinkers focus on the facts and evidence at hand. They think in a logical and sequential way and make sure that one objective is met before moving on to the next job. They are ordered and disciplined and dislike taking shortcuts. Logical thinkers are often bad at multi-tasking and may slow the progress of the team down because they want thinks done in a logical order. The Detailed Thinker The detailed thinkers focuses their attention on the details of the project. They are thorough and make sure that a certain task is correctly completed. This means that they usually take some more time then other people when executing a particular task: not because they work slower, but because they do more work. Although detailed thinkers are excellent people for preforming tasks that need to be done meticulously but they might lose sight of the bigger picture of the project because they are too much focused on the details.

16

The Trouble Shooter The trouble shooter looks for (potential) problems that need to be avoided. They don’t like taking risks and are usually good at dealing with crisis situations. They think in terms of risk management and focus on things that could go wrong and how to deal with them if they would go wrong. Because they focus on the negative they might be seen as other team members as pessimists.

3.3.3

People focus

The Collaborator Collaborators like to work with other people and actively seek out other people with whom they can work with. They usually fit into any team, and focus on developing relationships between people within the team. They are good at networking, and seek out opportunities to wrok with others inside and outside the team. Sometimes they are too focused on networking and neglect the actual task that needs to be done. The Challenger Challengers want to think outside the boundaries of the current paradigm that they are involved with, so they challenge. They think about an issue by disagreeing with other team members which can make challengers difficult to work with. They do not like being told that something is not possible or that they cannot do something and they tend to take risks to achieve their goals. Because they challenge other team members they sometimes upset people. The Altruist Altruists look after their team members, focussing on their wellbeing, both physically and psychologically. They try to find other peoples needs and try to fulfill those needs. Other team members will usually appreciate altruists or even take advantage of them. Because altruists find people more important that the task that needs to be done, they might be more focused on helping others then on completing the goal.

Figure 3.1: The Cognitive Team Roles Wheel gives an overview of the ten different team roles.

17

3.4

Making a strong team

Cognitive Thinking Styles can be used to improve a team by looking at the following aspects of team work: • The cognitive strengths of the team: The areas where the team thinks effectively and where the combined thinking strategies of the team are appropriate • The potential cognitive weaknesses of the team: The areas where the combined thinking of the team is not appropriate or some of the thinking strategies are missing in the team. • The cognitive synergies within the team: The areas where two or more people have the same preference for a particular way of thinking which means that they are likely to work well together. • The potential conflicts within the team: The areas where people are likely to get into trouble due to different cognitive preferences.

18

Chapter 4

Myer’s management team roles indicators Myer’s management team roles indicator (MTR-i ) is designed to show the type of contribution each individual makes to a team. In his model, Myer considers eight categories of the team roles that should be taken by individuals in a team. According to him, all the roles are important for the success of any given team. These roles are given in figure 4.1 and further discussed below.

Figure 4.1: Graphical representation of Myer’s management team roles indicators.

• Innovator These people use their imagination to try and create new and different ideas and perspectives. They develop new insights and ideas in the inner world of thoughts, beliefs and understanding. They observe the world around them, and then use their imaginations to consider what they have observed from a number of different perspectives. Innovators therefore often produce radical solutions to problems,develop long-term vision and demonstrate an apparent understanding of what cannot be clearly known. To other members of the team it can appear as guesswork and speculation, but to innovators it is an intuitive insight. • Sculptor These try to bring things to fruition. They get things done and as soon as possible. Sculptors

19

tend to take an immediate view of the situation, seeing what needs to be done and getting on with it. They work towards tangible products, achieving clear goals that make use of their experience or involve using tools or processes of which they already have knowledge. Their goals tend to be ones that they know from experience can be achieved, or that can be clearly visualized from the outset of their work. They are action-oriented, and tend to deal with whatever issues the current situation presents, whether there is a problem to solve or a goal to be achieved or products to be produced. Not only do they take action themselves, but also they often spur others into action as well. • Conductor These try to introduce organization into the way things are done. They organize the world around them in a logical and structured fashion. They establish appropriate plans, identify and implement appropriate procedures, and then endeavor to make sure they are followed. They try to ensure that roles and responsibilities are properly defined and that appropriate resources or skills available to undertake the work assigned. They establish logical connections between people, things and situations. They sometimes draw comparisons between similar situations, identifying the differences or contradictions, and using the comparisons to determine the most correct way of doing things. • Scientist These try to provide explanation of how and why things happen. They introduce structure and organization into the inner world of ideas and understanding. They analyze ideas, and formulate hypotheses and explanations of how things function. They produce mental models that replicate how particular aspects of the world works, or determine the principles and laws that identify the relationships between cause and effect. They formulate questions or hypotheses, gather evidence and compare or analyze different ideas and view points. They spot flaws or inconsistencies and test out the differences to find out which is true. They often try to understand the full complexity of the problem or situation being considered. • Coach These try to build harmony and agreement in the team and in the world around them. They build a rapport with people, create a positive team atmosphere, look after people’s welfare, or provide a service to the satisfaction of others. They often want the team and/ or situation to feel right, so that people feel motivated and positively disposed towards the team, their work, the service being given, or the product being produced. They value other people’s contributions, and often seek to nurtue of develop the role that others play. They also invest a lot of effort in building positive relationships with their colleagues or customers. They try to overcome differences of opinion and find ways in which the team can agree. They seek accord, so that the team is working together, rather than pulling in their own different directions. • Curator They try to bring clarity to the inner world of information, ideas and understanding. They often spend time listening, asking questions and absorbing information, so that in their minds’s eye they can achieve as clear a picture or understanding as is possible. Knowledge and experience is very important to curators, and a lot of their attention is directed towards building up their knowledge and understanding their observations in terms of their experience. They also look to the future, but not in a speculative way. They invisage clear goals and clear pathways to achievement of those goals. Any ideas that involve guesswork are either left to the pronvice of the intuitive team roles, or the curator tries to increase the reality of those ideas. This is done by adding more information or greater clarity to the idea, or by interpreting it in terms of what is already known. They will also try to understand the plans or processes by which that idea or goal may be realized. • Crusader These try to give importance to particular ideas, thoughts or beliefs. They build harmony 20

in the inner world of ideas and thoughts. That is, they want their thoughts and ideas to feel right, and what makes ideas feel right is whether they are in accord with the person’s belief and values. They are therefore value driven, and in a team discussion, they often bring a sense of prioriy that is derived from their strong convictions. They seize upon and emphasize ideas of thoughts that have the greatest import, bringing them to the fore and stressing their significance. They therefore notice, and bring to other people’s notice, what they view as the inherently important issues. • Explorer These try to promote exploration of new and better ways of doing things, or trying to uncover hidden potential in people, things or situations. They are often look one step beyond the current situation, being interested in finding nwe and better possibilities than are immediately apparent. They like to break new ground, and often pursue unexplored avenues with vigor until all the possibilities have been exhausted, or the potential identified. They challenge the status quo and experiment with the introduction of change, to see if the situation can be improved or some new potential be uncoverd. They like to develop new potential, open up new options or possibilities, and to revolutionize things by making radical changes.

21

Chapter 5

The Magerison-McCann team management wheel This is one of the group role models which attempts to go beyond the Belbin model by showing that people have special work preferences that are related to how they play in a team. The model is based around the Team Management Profile Questionnaire, which measures individuals work preference on the following four dimensions. • Relationship. The model looks at the way how people interact with each other. It considers wether people interact in an extrovert or introvert way with one another. • Information. The model looks at wether people handle information in a more practical or creative way. • Decision. Here the model looks at the way people make decisions. The question answered here is, ”do people base their decisions on analysis or on beliefs?” • Organization. The model considers the way how people organize themselves and others. Do they do it in a more structured way or in a more flexible way. The information that is obtained from the test on the four dimensions above provides a profile of the individual in terms that can be translated onto the Team Management Wheel. Margerison-McCann team management wheel considers the following team roles. • Creator- Innovators. These are people who have many ideas that may well challenge and upset the existing way of doing things. These people can be independent and wish to pursue their ideas regardless of the present systems and methods. • Explorer-Promoters. These are often good at generating ideas and getting people enthusiastic about them. They are also good at bringing back contacts, information and resources that can help innovation in the team. • Assessor-Developers. These provide a balance between the exploring and organizing parts of the team management wheel. They often try to find ways and means to make an idea work in practice. • Thruster- Organizers. These are the people who will often get things done. When an idea is of interest they set up procedures and systems and turn the idea into a working reality.They will organize people and systems to ensure that deadlines will be met. 22

• Concluder- Producers. These take a great pride in producing a product or service to a standard. They can ensure that the results are achieved and that the work of the team is effective and efficient. • Controller- Inspectors. These are people who like doing detailed work and ensure that the facts and figures are correct. They are careful and meticulous and often critical of errors or unsystematic work. • Upholder- Maintainers. These are often people of strong conviction about the way things should be done. They are good at providing support and stability to the team. • Reporter- Advisers. These are good at generating information and gathering it in such a way that it can be understood. Such people are usually patient and prepared not to make decisions before they sufficiently know about the work to be done. This model also considers a ninth role which it ranks as not so independent because it can be shared by all the group members. This is the ”linker”, which is central to team activity since it performs a connecting role in ensuring that the team operates in an effective manner. All the above roles can be summarized in the ”wheel” below.

Figure 5.1: Graphical representation of the Magerison-McCann team management wheel.

The idea behind this model is that there should be a balance of individuals across the wheel. Different situations and team objectives require different roles out of the wheel. Thus for an effective and successful team all the roles should be catered for. According to Margerison and McCann, a high performing team should posses the following qualities. • Accept that all team members have a responsibility to undertake the linking role. • Have high expectations and set high targets. • Gain high levels of job satisfaction. • Experience high levels of co-operation. • Provide team manager who lead by example. 23

• Develop teams that have a balance of roles matched to skills. • Experience high degrees of autonomy. • Learn quickly from mistakes. • Develop teams that are customer orientated. • Display good problem- solving skills and review group performance. • Be motivated to perform.

24

Chapter 6

Conclusion In this report four different team roles models are discussed: Belbin, Cognitive Team Roles, MTR-i and Magerison-McCann team management wheel. All four models distinguish between 8 and 10 different roles to make up a good team, which have a big overlap. They tend to give their own names to the different roles, but the roles are essentially the same. For a good team it is important that all the roles are fulfilled, some roles can be performed by a single person while other roles are shared by multiple persons. In smaller teams a person will usually have more than one role. While the Cognitive Team Roles model allows a team to consist of as little as two people, the Belbin model requires at least 5-6 people for a succesful team. Belbin’s model is primarily behaviourally based while Cognitive Team Roles measures cognitive style preferences. The Magerison-McCann team management wheel tries to go beyond the Belbin model by showing that people have special work preferences that are related to how they work in a team. MTR-i is in essence the same as Belbin’s model. In essence, all four models are the same but are based on a different psychological background.

25

Bibliography [1] Management Teams (1981) R. Meredith Belbin Heinemann Ltd, London [2] Understanding Team Role Theory Malcom Yates http://executive.development.users.btopenworld.com/media/downloads/teams.pdf [3] Team building Midlands Excellence Checklist No.012 [4] Article on the psychology of teams (april 2005) Fiona Beddoes-Jones with Julia Miller Westminster Explained http://www.westminster-explained.com/files/April%202005.doc [5] Cognitive Team Roles (May 25th 2006) Hampshire Learning Centre http://www3.hants.gov.uk/print/learningcentre/leading-success/psychometric-assessmenttools/thinking-styles-group-session/cognitive-team-profiles.htm [6] Cognitive Team Roles The Cognitive Fitness Consultancy http://www.cognitivefitness.co.uk [7] Belbin’s Team Roles and Cognitive Team Roles: A study of ”two perspectives”? (2003) The Cognitive Fitness Consultancy http://www.cognitivefitness.co.uk/thinking styles/articles/UK%20HRD%202003.pdf [8] Management Team Roles Indicator (MTR-i) Mary Sample The Test Agency http://www.profiles-r-us.com/samples/mtri-shortsample.pdf [9] The Process of Selecting Project Team Members in a Matrix Organization with Multiproject Environment Johan Andersson & Mikael Finnserud http://www.diva-portal.org/diva/getDocument?urn nbn se liu diva-1689-1 fulltext.pdf

26